Do you even know what that means? It has a very specific meaning. From Wikipedia, "Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." It is usually used to rule out evidence that cannot be tested by the court (like if a witness says Bob told him something, but Bob skipped town so no one can ask him about it).

Gawker/Gizmodo said they paid $5000 for the phone. They! Get it? If they say they did something, it can't be called hearsay, because they were the one who said it! Now, they may be lying, but it's still not hearsay.

I don't get it. All these tech sites do this. Buy people's lost and found stuff and disassemble it. What's so different about Jizzmodo? I think the police should focus on real criminals instead of wasting time confiscating computers, taking away photographers' cameras, assaulting Ivy League professors for trying to get into their own homes and countless other violations.

Lost and Found, Consumer purchased products are far from R&D non-released test products valued at billions.

And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.

Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.

Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?

You don't live anywhere near Cupertino, do you? He was a baseband engineer. The typical iPhone release schedule is such that yes, I would expect there to be lots of employees using them out there for testing purposes.

I know several people at Apple from low level on up. It doesn't matter how close you are with them, you don't ask and you don't pry. Sometimes a little nod to something one way or the other comes up, or sometimes you know something is going to be released because they're suddenly called away or pulling all nighters, but they don't take risks with their jobs for no reason at all. This was an anomaly, but not so hard to believe that it could've happened to anyone. Who hasn't lost, misplaced or whatever something incredibly valuable at some point?

Too bad police did not have time to leave. If they did the story would have went something like this:

"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."

Classic!

On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. 

You don't live anywhere near Cupertino, do you? He was a baseband engineer. The typical iPhone release schedule is such that yes, I would expect there to be lots of employees using them out there for testing purposes.

I know several people at Apple from low level on up. It doesn't matter how close you are with them, you don't ask and you don't pry. Sometimes a little nod to something one way or the other comes up, or sometimes you know something is going to be released because they're suddenly called away or pulling all nighters, but they don't take risks with their jobs for no reason at all. This was an anomaly, but not so hard to believe that it could've happened to anyone. Who hasn't lost, misplaced or whatever something incredibly valuable at some point?

Gizmodo will have their attorneys attempting to shield the individuals authorized to make the purchase.

However, trafficking in stolen property automatically becomes The State of California [or any of the other 49 states and territories] against the Defendant.

They're f****ed.

They're going to have a hard time explaining why they paid 5 freaking thousand dollars for what looked like a Chinese knockoff without due diligence towards ascertaining how and why the seller got the unit. CA Penal Code 496 gives the prosecutor a lot of leeway even if they don't give up the seller. I do think the warrant "search and seizure" was total BS though but it doesn't absolve Gizmodo from the potential 496 trouble.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

You are not going to see an actual report that says Apple officially said the phone was stolen. It doesn't work like that. That exposes Apple to liability if it is wrong.

When I mention reports, I refer to police reports, not news reports. I do not have to reference police reports. If I call the police, the police will file a report after they investigate the matter, not before.

Here, various news source have reported that the police have been in contact with Apple in regards to the missing phone matter. Obviously, in response to that contact, the police are investigating. The police would not be investigating and confiscating equipment if Apple told the police it thought the phone was merely lost. Apple suspects foul play. The DA at least convinced a judge there was probably cause to suspect foul play.

Further, any police report likely wouldn't be issued until the investigation is concluded. Even if Apple suspects theft, it isn't going to come out and say that. If the police prosecute and win, Apple might sue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harleigh Quinn

But I have yet to see a report stating that APPLE stated they suspected it stolen.

Please reference these reports.

There have been reports stating that they feel they may have lost the phone, but nothing stating they felt it was stolen.

So that puts this in a different realm then what everyone is stating has occurred here.

In the final analysis what does the DA going after and seizing Jason Chen's equipment really mean?

It means that the DA found enough circumstantial evidence to convince the judge to issue a warrant for seizure.

It means that the DA suspects that there is evidence of some type on Jason Chen's equipment that could be used to drive a criminal investigation, especially if there's the likelihood of a conviction at the other end. But they did not issue a warrant for Chen's arrest, so its possible that he is not the focus of their intent.

One more thing. Gizmodo, like it, love it, hate it - whatever. They are a source of revenue for Gawker Media. They are one part entertainment, one part information a shot of attitude and a squeeze of lime for tartness. They haven't won any prizes for their coverage of technology (unlike Engadget who have btw). They are not intrepid journalists outing the dark underworld of the tech industry. Defending them is unnecessary. Because in the final analysis, if they committed a criminal act, they will be prosecuted under the law. Not because Apple wants their blood, or retribution or whatever, but because they were stupid and careless. Jason may go to jail. Apple may decide that this would be a good time to pile-on Gizmodo and Gawker for some civil retribution, but probably not.

If they are found to be innocent (sic) of criminal charges ( and again, Apple has NOT according to public record to date filed any complaint or reported the prototype as in fact stolen) they get off with a huge amount of publicity, rolling page hits and lots of ad revenue. Jason may even get a bonus out of the deal.

Apple undoubtably either way will take a long hard look at their roving testing policies and the units may end up leashed to their holders, or something. They already have fairly draconian policies around their prototypes, this is only going to make them worse. See Giz COULD HAVE simply got the device and over-nighted it to 1 Infinite Loop care of Gray Powell and things would have been a lot different. Even taken a few pics to tantalize their readers with over time. But that's NOT how Giz rolls.

All of this is only important to us tech geeks - you ask someone out in the everyday world and odds are even they don't even know that this is going on. As some guy in England wrote once: "it is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or really very little.

You are not going to see an actual report that says Apple officially said the phone was stolen. It doesn't work like that. That exposes Apple to liability if it is wrong.

When I mention reports, I refer to police reports, not news reports. I do not have to reference police reports. If I call the police, the police will file a report after they investigate the matter, not before.

Here, various news source have reported that the police have been in contact with Apple in regards to the missing phone matter. Obviously, in response to that contact, the police are investigating. The police would not be investigating and confiscating equipment if Apple told the police it thought the phone was merely lost. Apple suspects foul play. The DA at least convinced a judge there was probably cause to suspect foul play.

Further, any police report likely wouldn't be issued until the investigation is concluded. Even if Apple suspects theft, it isn't going to come out and say that. If the police prosecute and win, Apple might sue.

Actually NOTHING is OBVIOUS. That is conjecture and speculation until there is proof of such.

In the meantime this could be the state of california taking matters into their own hands for the possibility of a high profile case and nothing more.

As for reports, when was the last time you 100 percent trusted what a news source gave you? I don't mean that to be joking, I mean that seriously.

There has been no corroboration from any official source that stated apple had reported the item stolen.

None.

If apple can just have someone's home searched without going on record that would validate someone else's statement in this thread and your statement implies this is possible.

Google is bad enough. Do you really want to live in a world where someone does not have the right to confront their accuser due to their accuser being able to hide behind money and (apparently) their own purchased attack dogs?

That opens a whole other avenue I would not like to contemplate, and I am sure neither would you.

About Apple products that Apple hasn't publicly announced? That's absolutely correct! Having been involved with Apple with NDAs and embargoes for many years in different positions, I know enough about how things work, but I currently don't have any information other than speculation and reading leaks/rumors...and like most anyone else, if I knew anything about their unannounced products I wouldn't talk.

Also, Apple does some serious disinformation, often using this to track leaks and keep people in check. So few people really are in the know as to what final decisions are going to be that often when you do hear something, you have to realize that the person may not really know how things will end up.

It wouldn't be surprising that the iPhone that was stolen had false features or design to see if it was leaked and track that back to the engineer if he had leaked it or shown it.

In the final analysis what does the DA going after and seizing Jason Chen's equipment really mean?

It means that the DA found enough circumstantial evidence to convince the judge to issue a warrant for seizure.

It means that the DA suspects that there is evidence of some type on Jason Chen's equipment that could be used to drive a criminal investigation, especially if there's the likelihood of a conviction at the other end. But they did not issue a warrant for Chen's arrest, so its possible that he is not the focus of their intent.

One more thing. Gizmodo, like it, love it, hate it - whatever. They are a source of revenue for Gawker Media. They are one part entertainment, one part information a shot of attitude and a squeeze of lime for tartness. They haven't won any prizes for their coverage of technology (unlike Engadget who have btw). They are not intrepid journalists outing the dark underworld of the tech industry. Defending them is unnecessary. Because in the final analysis, if they committed a criminal act, they will be prosecuted under the law. Not because Apple wants their blood, or retribution or whatever, but because they were stupid and careless. Jason may go to jail. Apple may decide that this would be a good time to pile-on Gizmodo and Gawker for some civil retribution, but probably not.

If they are found to be innocent (sic) of criminal charges ( and again, Apple has NOT according to public record to date filed any complaint or reported the prototype as in fact stolen) they get off with a huge amount of publicity, rolling page hits and lots of ad revenue. Jason may even get a bonus out of the deal.

Apple undoubtably either way will take a long hard look at their roving testing policies and the units may end up leashed to their holders, or something. They already have fairly draconian policies around their prototypes, this is only going to make them worse. See Giz COULD HAVE simply got the device and over-nighted it to 1 Infinite Loop care of Gray Powell and things would have been a lot different. Even taken a few pics to tantalize their readers with over time. But that's NOT how Giz rolls.

All of this is only important to us tech geeks - you ask someone out in the everyday world and odds are even they don't even know that this is going on. As some guy in England wrote once: "it is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Or really very little.

It means the DA has nothing and is hoping to find something and was able to commit a judge to allowing him to undertake that search.

It's the equivalent of a wiretap and nothing more.

In your language that would also be termed as fishing (or is it phishing?)

P.S.: I should have read the rest of your post. It is actually quite apt.

What Gizmodo did was wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. What authorities did was wrong and we should be fearful of judicial and police overreaction ESPECIALLY with regard to the fourth estate. Actions like this WILL have repercussions on other reporters, whether you realize it or not.

I do not agree that this was an "overreaction" by authorities with a search warrant.

And I am hoping that actions like this WILL send a message to other not -so-bright journalists that this sort of practice (theft/"finders keepers, losers weepers"/whatever you want to call it) is not acceptable.

On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. 

About Apple products that Apple hasn't publicly announced? That's absolutely correct! Having been involved with Apple with NDAs and embargoes for many years in different positions, I know enough about how things work, but I currently don't have any information other than speculation and reading leaks/rumors...and like most anyone else, if I knew anything about their unannounced products I wouldn't talk.

Also, Apple does some serious disinformation, often using this to track leaks and keep people in check. So few people really are in the know as to what final decisions are going to be that often when you do hear something, you have to realize that the person may not really know how things will end up.

It wouldn't be surprising that the iPhone that was stolen had false features or design to see if it was leaked and track that back to the engineer if he had leaked it or shown it.

It could argue that, but I would probably lose. First, with all the Chinese knock offs floating around do you really think Gizmodo is going to pay $5, 000 for a phone that might be an iPhone? That doesn't pass the sniff test any more then me saying I didn't know the $2, 500 Macbook Pro I bought on the corner for $500 wasn't stolen until the police busted me.

Second, Gizmodo didn't have to do tests on the phone if it had enough information to suspect it had a lost Apple prototype. If it bought the phone, it suspected it was Apple's. It could have contacted Apple immediately and asked if it lost a phone. It eventually contacted Apple through proper channels. Why wait to tear the phone apart? It doesn't need to be sure it belonged to Apple, it only had to suspect it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihxo

gizmodo could argue that they did not know if that's really an iPhone prototype until they actually got their hands on it. And they did return it to Apple when requested. The felony's most likely for the guy who sold it.

Armed with a warrant, California's Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team entered Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home last week and seized four computers and two servers in its felony investigation of an obtained prototype iPhone.

Remember "1984", with the Thought Police chasing down the girl with the hammer?

It could argue that, but I would probably lose. First, with all the Chinese knock offs floating around do you really think Gizmodo is going to pay $5, 000 for a phone that might be an iPhone? That doesn't pass the sniff test any more then me saying I didn't know the $2, 500 Macbook Pro I bought on the corner for $500 wasn't stolen until the police busted me.

Second, Gizmodo didn't have to do tests on the phone if it had enough information to suspect it had a lost Apple prototype. If it bought the phone, it suspected it was Apple's. It could have contacted Apple immediately and asked if it lost a phone. It eventually contacted Apple through proper channels. Why wait to tear the phone apart? It doesn't need to be sure it belonged to Apple, it only had to suspect it did.

Actually, that defense would be plausible, as you well know, assuming it was "stolen" and "purchased".

Of course it could also be argued, assuming the above is true and valid, that once they got it apart and verified it was an apple product, they felt it was their duty to report on it, as journalists.

If it was a knock off (again, speculation) $5k down the drain. If it was real, media platinum.

Even from the outside looking in, I could see the risk/reward argument they may have had.

Ok, consider every time I say stolen phone, what I mean is:The phone that Gizmodo claims, as posted on their site, purchased, as they claim as posted on their site, from someone as they claim as posted on their site, who they knew as they claim as posted on their site, stole the phone.

Throw in a few more "Gizmodo claims as posted on their site"s if it makes you feel better.

I'd honestly love to know how he would have accomplished that. Unless he's Tom Cruise, I more feel this piece of tech was handed to them, but that's just my opinion based on holes and the public nature of the circumstances.

Any fool would not have stated they paid for an item that was obviously a potential piece of corporate espionage unless there was reason to distance themselves from whomever gave it to them.

That's entirely possible. Again which is why the police are investigating.

Too bad police did not have time to leave. If they did the story would have went something like this:

"We were just passing by the house and the Garage door was open. So we walked in and saw all these computers that no one seemed to claim. We yelled around once or twice, and while we saw the phone number on Chan's GS, we did not call him. In fact we sold his possessions to a rival tech blog engadget, who posted Chan's personal information all over the internet. When Chan contacted us about his lost property we said we will give it back right away, now that we know for sure it's his. But before we do that we will post his passwords and user names on the internet as well. Can't sue us, we are just doing anything for a story."

Ok, consider every time I say stolen phone, what I mean is:The phone that Gizmodo claims, as posted on their site, purchased, as they claim as posted on their site, from someone as they claim as posted on their site, who they knew as they claim as posted on their site, stole the phone.

If you fall back on that story, you must also fall back on the same report where in said finder asked (though no bartender even remembers any of this actually happening) asked several people if it was their phone or if they knew who it belonged to, attempted to contact other agencies to no response and then suddenly knew how to get a hold of Gizmodo.

All of which seems flakey, but whatever.

I could fall back on what others stated when it was first reported which was this would be the first reported failure of "find my iPhone".....but that horse has been beaten to death.

And all of these blogs point to high profile apple execs testing said devices, such as SJ himself, not a low level engineer.

Find an apple employee that states a low level programmer gets to take home a high level device and do whatever with it.

Also, lets be honest here, if you were an apple tech would you take your new prototype out to the bar with you, or the 3GS you were issued for being a loyal apple employee?

Apparently common sense does not reign in this venue.....

I'm not here to do a pissing contest, though I could tell you things that could either curdle your blood or make you laugh, but I would like people to actually think about the circumstances rather than shooting from the hip.

I believe people (like macslut for example above) have already spoken to the roving aspects of having the engineers who are working on the device doing just that - out in public, the exec's get the fully functional versions - the engineers get mules with the hardware easy to access to make adjustments. Was Gray dumb - perhaps. Certainly for leaving it lay around like that - yes. But let's be clear he is a base-band engineer not some code hack. If Apple is doing something different with connectivity, antennas - what ever, he has to be using it out and about to make sure it is a solid solution performance-wise. I used to work for 3M in research, we had similar situations, nearly as draconian as Apple because we dev'd for DARPA, so none of this surprises me.

And for the record pissing contests aren't necessary. I have friends in most of the enforcement and intelligence units in the Fed as well as Treasury. I've worked shoulder to shoulder with some of them in discrete situations so yeah we have our stories, each of us. But I am curious as to why you are so adamant in your defense of Gizmodo's alleged behavior and their potential culpability in this situation. A simple synthesis of facts alleged and attributed give a substantial probable cause here - in particular by Gizmodo's own rather detailed descriptions are rather damning. And I for myself will toast your Grey Goose with a less conspicuously labelled spirit of ancient age - my fine last sips of a very old cognac.

dude... gray powell had an accident that couldve happened to most of us? really?
maybe you should get fired with him.

it is not like i bought an iphone 3gs and lost it, shit happened.
he had a prototype of iphone 4g and carelessly lost it being drunken.

It's not just being fired. I could understand that.

It's being unemployed in the career you prepared for during the rest of your life because the Hit Whoring Idiotic Douchebag Felons outed you and there would be no way someone in this industry would hire you after doing the Google check for just a few seconds and seeing this.

Also, we don't know all the details around the loss of the phone or his possession of it. There may be circumstances that make it more understandable...was he required to always have it? Was he drugged? Did the "finder" really find it, or was it out right stolen?

Whatever the case, I don't like seeing people without malice having their lives ruined.

I believe people (like macslut for example above) have already spoken to the roving aspects of having the engineers who are working on the device doing just that - out in public, the exec's get the fully functional versions - the engineers get mules with the hardware easy to access to make adjustments. Was Gray dumb - perhaps. Certainly for leaving it lay around like that - yes. But let's be clear he is a base-band engineer not some code hack. If Apple is doing something different with connectivity, antennas - what ever, he has to be using it out and about to make sure it is a solid solution performance-wise. I used to work for 3M in research, we had similar situations, nearly as draconian as Apple because we dev'd for DARPA, so none of this surprises me.

And for the record pissing contests aren't necessary. I have friends in most of the enforcement and intelligence units in the Fed as well as Treasury. I've worked shoulder to shoulder with some of them in discrete situations so yeah we have our stories, each of us. But I am curious as to why you are so adamant in your defense of Gizmodo's alleged behavior and their potential culpability in this situation. A simple synthesis of facts alleged and attributed give a substantial probable cause here - in particular by Gizmodo's own rather detailed descriptions are rather damning. And I for myself will toast your Grey Goose with a less conspicuously labelled spirit of ancient age - my fine last sips of a very old cognac.

Plainly because the circumstances, the explanation, and the way it was reported was too pat, too simple, too not their style for this type of reveal.

The timing is too conspicuous, the way it was obtained and how it was stated it was obtained seems too by design.

And as we all well know, apple is known for pulling this exact style of stunt.

You of all people should know that there are time limits to testing as well as geographic requirements in order to adequately and accurately test said device and you should also know that you would not have taken a piece of equipment to a bar, bordello, or whatever you chose to do for fun for fear of losing a clients valuable piece of tech, much less your employer's.

BTW, I stopped drinking congac in 2002. I made a decision to only go to clear liquors. Too much congac, too many manhattans, and a nearly destroyed stomach lining will do that.

found the phone. I still feel it important to distinguish between finding it on a barstool and lifting it out of someone's pocket, even if both acts are illegal in CA.

According to Gizmodo (if you will) he CLAIMS to have found it on a barstool, asks around, got no response and decided to take it home. Checking it out, found Powell's Facebook link on it (and so had his name) but instead of doing the logical thing and returning it to the bar where it was left, he attempted, according to Gizmodo, to call the Apple support lines to return it, etc. This stuff is all out there in GIzmodo's recount of it. He removed it from where it was found. That alone according to Cailfornia law is considered theft. Further when Gizmodo finally contacted Powell he said he had called the bar several times to see if anyone has TURNED IT IN. A logical and expected behavior by an honest person. All of this has been hashed and rehashed.